Creation Vs Creationism

This forum always argues Evolution vs Creationism. But nary have I found a word about Evolution vs Creation.

Is there a difference? Yes there is.

And it is done over and over and over.

I read a post recently about the probabilities of a hemoglobin coming together on itself correctly, and they defy logic, statisticians say it is an
impossibility. The same can be true of a single chromosome folding upon itself correctly. (One out of the some fifty thousand found in the human
body for example. ONE.)

Then you come across very well written threads, that talk about, for example, the DNA and how wondrous it is. The amount of information it contains,
how it is a digital alphabet that forms a coded book with the blueprint of life. All signs of intelligence. Not only is it a digital book that is
condensed to a size that is incredible, the mechanisms in the cell that work it are beyond imagining complex, so complex that built to scale no human
could replicate its scale or complexity.

In fact the digital book contained in the DNA is not only jam backed full of digital code that spells out everything needed for life, this book
amazingly can replicate itself. What would you think if you went to the library and found the most complex book ever created could just duplicate
itself over and over, without any outside help?

Everything needed for it is all found in the cell, including the DNA of course, the RNA which transcribes the DNA, and chromosomes and ensyms needed
to replicate it.

There is a thread out there that goes into much more complex detail about this.

Then we have the fact that no kind of animal has ever been proven to break the barriers the DNA places upon it. True, we do see adaption to
environmental factors that have been programmed into the DNA itself, for a certain kind of life-form, but never does that kind ever break the barrier
that has been set for it.

For example, finches have been observed to adapt to different changes, perhaps getting bigger beaks, etc. But a finch has never been observed to
become anything other than a finch. And yet evolutionists will point to the finch as proof of evolution in action. Instead of what it is, a
variation in the kind, based upon preset conditions already coded within the DNA by a supremely complex mind.

No evolutionists will ever ever give you a single example of a kind breaking its barrier to create or evolve into a new kind of living thing. In fact
the fossil record shows that there have been very little changes in different kinds of living things over vast amounts of times. And when different
life-forms appeared, it was always suddenly, with NO "missing links" between kinds or species ever being found.

You can all argue that blue till Sunday, these are all facts.

But does this make Creationism true?

OF COURSE NOT!

And this is where so many get it wrong. Creationism is a belief that the six creative days in Genesis one had to be literal. That is God created the
earth and the universe, and everything in them about six thousand years ago, in six literal 24-hour days.

Creationism is NOT taught in the Bible, and it is just as illogical as evolution is.

But this is what happens. Evolutionists will ignore the illogical beliefs and arguments they pander too, and harp on the obvious ridiculousness of
creationism. While creationists will ignore the ridiculous nature of their beliefs and harp on the obvious errors in the evolutionary theory.

They are both wrong, yet they are both blind to the truth.

There is a big difference in believing in creation and believing in creationism.

I hope that this helps you understand that better.

NOW...that is all I wanted to say on this matter, but it is inevitable that there will be those from both camps that will come and begin to ask
questions about Genesis one. So because of this, facts will be given below to explain it from a scientifically sound viewpoint. You do not need to
read further if you have any points regarding the Genesis account of creation.

First off, many Christians do not believe in Creationism, and yet believe the Bible to be accurate. They do not adhere to the teaching by some
fundamentalists that the Bible has to be taken literally in every instance. In fact, to give you an example, the last book of the Bible, Revelation
itself says that it was written in signs about things that were to shortly take place. That is symbolic language.

Here is an interesting fact, the VERY FIRST motion picture with color and sound was entitled "The Photo-Drama of Creation." It is eight hours in
length and was published in 1914, one hundred years ago this year.

In it Charles Russell showed that the days of the Genesis account were each thousands of years long, and that they had nothing to do with the very
first sentence in the Bible.

Genesis 1:1 (the first sentence of the Bible) states simply: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

And that statement has been found to be scientifically accurate. The universe has been proven to have had a beginning, it is not eternal or infinite,
so some time in the distant past, an unspecified time by the Bible, God caused the universe to come into existence. Scientists believe that it was
about 13.8 billion years ago.

That time-span may seem daunting to a human, yet the Bible itself shows that God is the "king of Eternity," and that a thousand years to man appear
as only a mere passing of a day to Jehovah God (Jehovah is the name of God as found in the Bible):

(2 Peter 3:8) . . .However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand
years as one day.

Now imagine this. Moses sitting upon Mount Sinai penning the first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch (for five) also known as the
Torah (meaning Law). Did Moses have access to the fossil record? Not likely. Yet as you read the opening account of creation, that Hebrew Shepard
gives an accurate account of how life appeared on earth, that has been confirmed by the fossil record. How did Moses have access to such accurate
information?

As he pens those words in Genesis 1, after the first verse, they are dealing directly with Jehovah God's attention toward the planet earth, his
preparing it for life, and his inhabiting it with life, culminating in the creation of man.

Each of the creative days were long periods, or eons of time. They did not happen overnight. But one followed the other as the time was appropriate.
We know these were NOT literal days because the very next chapter states that God created the entire universe "in the day" for it:

(Genesis 2:4) . . .This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and
heaven.

So we see that the word has an alliterative sense, and NOT a literal one.

So Creationism IS NOT taught in the Bible. What does the creation account then teach us? And how does it compare with known scientific fact?

On the first day there is darkness on the earth. That is NO light from the already existing luminaries in the sky, the sun, the moon, or the stars
cannon penetrate to the surface? Why is this? NO DOUBT because the earths atmosphere is thick, perhaps like that of a sister-planet Venus, in this
stage in its development:

(Genesis 1:2) . . .Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force
was moving about over the surface of the waters.

At this stage in earth's history there was a lot of water, but it was dark on the surface of the earth. Again this was because the atmosphere was to
thick to allow light to penetrate down to the surface.

What happens next? Notice:

(Genesis 1:4, 5) 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day,
but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

Notice that in verse 3 God's active force (or holy spirit) was moving about over the watery surface, and then God said "Let there be light." So there
was a clearing up enough of the atmosphere for light to penetrate to the surface at this point in earth's history. How God did this is not specified.
Only that he used his tremendous power to do so. In what way? We do not know.

What happens after this first creative day? Notice:

(Genesis 1:6-8) . . .Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the
waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so.
8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

At this point God wanted to divide the sky and the oceans, or the watery surface of the earth. And thus the division was made, one with water on the
earth's surface and on with a water canopy above in the earth's atmosphere. (This is the same water canopy that later came falling down during the
world-wide deluge.

Before the flood of Noah's day the entire earth was of a moderate tropical climate. The water canopy that God put in the heavens protected the earth
completely from the sun's harmful rays and made the entire earth's climate perfect for human life. You could wonder around naked all you want
anywhere on earth, you would never get too cold, or too hot, and you would NEVER get a sun burn.

But that is a digression. This division between the waters formed day two.

What happens next? Notice:

(Genesis 1:9-13) . . .Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And
it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said:
“Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.”
And it was so. 12 And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then
God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

So now God collects the oceans into one place and dry land appears. He calls the dry land earth, and he calls the collection of waters the Seas.

After this plant life appears. First he creates grass, and plants, and fruit frees.

This is in accord to the fossil record. Plant life is the first form of observable life appearing in the fossil record. Moses got it right.

Also, this plant life, in the sea, and on dry ground would be needed in "transforming the earth's atmosphere. From a carbon-dioxide rich environment,
to an oxygen rich on. So the plants no doubt helped in clearing the atmosphere even more at this stage in earth's preparation for human life.

This leads up to the next creative day where we are told:

(Genesis 1:14-19) . . .Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night,
and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years. 15 They will serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the
earth.” And it was so. 16 And God went on to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary
for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth 18 and to dominate by day
and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was
morning, a fourth day.

So on this fourth day of creation (not literal day remember) the earth's atmosphere had been cleared up enough by the plant life created on earth on
the third creative day that finally the suns light was able to clearly shine through to the earth's surface. The sun and the moon became visible, as
well as the stars in the heaven. And a division was clearly made between day and night.

The following creative day we are told that the creatures of the sea were created, and the flying creatures of the heaven.

And finally on the last creative day land animals appeared, both wild beasts and domestic ones, and after then God made man and woman.

All again verified by the fossil record. After plant life appeared, sea-life and birds appear, then lastly land animals and then lastly humans.

creationism is finding the proofs that things don't happen on their own, and evolution is impossible leaving only one other possibility CREATION.
CREATION can be seen when humans make new cars new inventions, when humans make clones or create (CREATION) new mutant bacteria, GM genetic
engineering pigs dna in corn plants, etc.

so creation by intelleigent design is all around us and need not be proved. while evolution is a theory and never been seen happeneing in nature.

More preachy nonsense. 50,000 chromosomes in the human body huh? More like 46.

a good example of intelligent design is humans making breaeds of dogs since ancient times. these breeds never exsited in nature by evolution but by
humans (intelligent beings) doing intelligent design on dogs and wolves.

More preachy nonsense. 50,000 chromosomes in the human body huh? More like 46.

a good example of intelligent design is humans making breaeds of dogs since ancient times. these breeds never exsited in nature by evolution but by
humans (intelligent beings) doing intelligent design on dogs and wolves.

And thus he looked towards the sky and screameth "artificial selection is not the same as creation" and the earth did trembleth. helldiver 1.1

is inventing a new car artificial selection.
or inventing a watch that can take you pulse and blood pressure and monitor you sleep and take you electo cariac gram, is artificial seletion.

there was non of any of the dog breeds you see now. there was only wolves and dogs.

corn plants had their dna modified and new segments of dna from other strains or even other species especially the pig dna added to the corn dna, this
is new dna species (like new breeds dogs have new dna), were made by intelligent design.

how ever who is watching over all the animals in nature (billions of species) fixing them when they accumulate harmful mutations (evolution to
death)??
not man of course! so who is he?

I read a post recently about the probabilities of a hemoglobin coming together on itself correctly, and they defy logic, statisticians say it is an
impossibility.

No it doesn't defy logic, and no statisticians do not say it is an impossibility. Both ideas are absurd.

Those impossibly high probability numbers might apply to the situation where you throw a bunch of random chemicals into a beaker and then sit back and
watch what happens, but that is NOT how evolution works.

Evolution works by filtering thousands or millions of random tiny changes through natural selection. The tiny changes are the only thing that is
random about the process: a cosmic ray here, or a replication error there, or a bit of extra heat over there, whatever.

Natural selection is absolutely not random. It is a filter with a very strict non-random regime: if one of the tiny changes produces an
organism that is better suited to its environment then the tiny change survives; if it produces an organism that is out competed then the tiny change
disappears.

The only way those 'impossible' figures make any sense at all is if the process were to be considered random. Evolution is NOT random. Hemoglobin
did not just pop into existence by random chance. Hemoglobin evolved slowly from a simple molecule to a more complicated one, one or two tiny changes
at a time, over many generations of organisms.

This isn't a subject of: who's right and who's wrong. Fact is ... nobody knows.

The universe came from somewhere. 'They' say it came from the Big Bang. Where did the Big Bang come from? "Well," they say, "It came from a
singularity." Well ... where the Hell did the singularity come from? If you choose to believe God created the heavens and the Earth, then your
search for the truth has simply come to an end.

Has evolution occurred? The 'evidence' for it seems overwhelming ... however, hard science has yet to substantiate the claim.

As for biblical texts ... What are the origins of the first five books of the Bible? What happened at the Council of Nicaea? Why do Christians seem
to put more stock in the New Testament ... and often forego the teachings of the old? What about all the other historical religions (pre-dating the
Bible) with stories similar to the ascribed life of Jesus Christ?

What is important about being right? Bragging rights? I'm awfully bored with the same old tired arguments from both sides. Fact is: You don't
_know_ and neither do they ... so what's the point of arguing?

Just like DNA is the shadow of our digital creation, language shadows the same process. Hebrew has 22 letters and Greek has 24. 46 chromosomes
render a human who is concrete on one side and abstract on the other. Hebrew is a concrete language and Greek is abstract/mathematical. If you read
the link above, you will see why the same letters that write the Word are the same letters that write proteins. The same reason our Bible is in
Hebrew and Greek is the same shadow effect that allows us to read DNA like a book. It's all based on the same process reflected in an image.

originally posted by: iSomeone
This forum always argues Evolution vs Creationism. But nary have I found a word about Evolution vs Creation.

Is there a difference? Yes there is.

And it is done over and over and over.

I hope that you are aware that there is no issue between creationism and evolution, as evolution does not cover start of life, but its change. Term
you most likely meaning would be abiogenesis - hypothesis (not a theory, mind you) about beginning of life on our planet.

originally posted by: iSomeone
I read a post recently about the probabilities of a hemoglobin coming together on itself correctly, and they defy logic, statisticians say it is an
impossibility. The same can be true of a single chromosome folding upon itself correctly. (One out of the some fifty thousand found in the human
body for example. ONE.)

Someone else already mentiond, we have only 46 chromosomes (23 pairs) and if you into Tool group music, you would know of song called '46 and
2'. Some believe its next step for human evolution, what makes it funny is that Chimpanzee, our cousins, already have 48.

originally posted by: iSomeone
Then you come across very well written threads, that talk about, for example, the DNA and how wondrous it is. The amount of information it contains,
how it is a digital alphabet that forms a coded book with the blueprint of life. All signs of intelligence. Not only is it a digital book that is
condensed to a size that is incredible, the mechanisms in the cell that work it are beyond imagining complex, so complex that built to scale no human
could replicate its scale or complexity.

You are aware that our science discovered DNA double helix in 1950s (Watson and Crick) and that improvement in labs and technology lead to today
knowledge. Of course you are well aware that none of this is covered by magic book?

originally posted by: iSomeone
In fact the digital book contained in the DNA is not only jam backed full of digital code that spells out everything needed for life, this book
amazingly can replicate itself. What would you think if you went to the library and found the most complex book ever created could just duplicate
itself over and over, without any outside help?

Been there, done that... it's called PDF - and can be made to replicate itself.

Comparing living cells to books... interesting.

originally posted by: iSomeone
Everything needed for it is all found in the cell, including the DNA of course, the RNA which transcribes the DNA, and chromosomes and ensyms needed
to replicate it.

All 50k chromosomes?

originally posted by: iSomeone
There is a thread out there that goes into much more complex detail about this.

I am sure there is, not sure if it proves your points tho.

originally posted by: iSomeone
Then we have the fact that no kind of animal has ever been proven to break the barriers the DNA places upon it. True, we do see adaption to
environmental factors that have been programmed into the DNA itself, for a certain kind of life-form, but never does that kind ever break the barrier
that has been set for it.

What are you talking about? Just googlel 'Koko Gorila' - let me know what you found.

originally posted by: iSomeone
For example, finches have been observed to adapt to different changes, perhaps getting bigger beaks, etc. But a finch has never been observed to
become anything other than a finch. And yet evolutionists will point to the finch as proof of evolution in action. Instead of what it is, a
variation in the kind, based upon preset conditions already coded within the DNA by a supremely complex mind.

Bu supremely complex mind - you mean God. Let's not go into details what created 'supremely complex mind' and what is purpose behind it - but what
would be reason for that mind to create 99% of species on earth that went extinct? Evolution can't be observed as you think it should - it takes
millions of years for changes from one kind into other, but we have fossils that prove change, as well some species that show characteristics of other
related species, like for example showed here.

originally posted by: iSomeone
No evolutionists will ever ever give you a single example of a kind breaking its barrier to create or evolve into a new kind of living thing. In fact
the fossil record shows that there have been very little changes in different kinds of living things over vast amounts of times. And when different
life-forms appeared, it was always suddenly, with NO "missing links" between kinds or species ever being found.

Have you ever seen any fossils?

There is no such a thing as 'missing links'. We are way past that old creationist fairy tale.

originally posted by: iSomeone
You can all argue that blue till Sunday, these are all facts.

And this is where so many get it wrong. Creationism is a belief that the six creative days in Genesis one had to be literal. That is God created the
earth and the universe, and everything in them about six thousand years ago, in six literal 24-hour days.

Not all creationist believe this, of course. Not sure if you are aware about it, tho.

originally posted by: iSomeoneCreationism is NOT taught in the Bible, and it is just as illogical as evolution
is.

You either believe in bible or not. Was it inspired by God or not? It is actually very simple... you either bleieve, or you use your head to learn.

originally posted by: iSomeoneBut this is what happens. Evolutionists will ignore the illogical beliefs and arguments
they pander too, and harp on the obvious ridiculousness of creationism. While creationists will ignore the ridiculous nature of their beliefs and
harp on the obvious errors in the evolutionary theory.

They are both wrong, yet they are both blind to the truth.

There is a big difference in believing in creation and believing in creationism.

I hope that this helps you understand that better.

NOW...that is all I wanted to say on this matter, but it is inevitable that there will be those from both camps that will come and begin to ask
questions about Genesis one. So because of this, facts will be given below to explain it from a scientifically sound viewpoint. You do not need to
read further if you have any points regarding the Genesis account of creation.

At this point you're lost and I run out of space and will to continue this.

I would suggest to check bit what is inside that library, read and then we can talk about evolution, abiogenesis and some fairy tales if you still
want to.

"And this is where so many get it wrong. Creationism is a belief that the six creative days in Genesis one had to be literal. That is God created the
earth and the universe, and everything in them about six thousand years ago, in six literal 24-hour days. "

Creationists believe that the Bible states that the entire universe was created around six thousand years ago, in six twenty-four hour days.

Creationism is NOT taught in the Bible.

Creationists do not merely believe in God. They believe this extremely narrow-minded and dreadfully inaccurate portrait of the Bible, which actually
detracts from the truth.

Evolutionists will constantly chide on that fact. That is all.

The rest of the thread was just explaining the Genesis account from a scientifically accurate point of view.

Just like DNA is the shadow of our digital creation, language shadows the same process. Hebrew has 22 letters and Greek has 24. 46 chromosomes
render a human who is concrete on one side and abstract on the other. Hebrew is a concrete language and Greek is abstract/mathematical. If you read
the link above, you will see why the same letters that write the Word are the same letters that write proteins. The same reason our Bible is in
Hebrew and Greek is the same shadow effect that allows us to read DNA like a book. It's all based on the same process reflected in an image.

Baptism is symbolic. When a person is immersed in water (the Bible teaches full water baptisim, not sprinkling of water on the head) it is symbolic
of the person's death to is former, ignorant, and wrong course of life. When he is lifted out of the water he becomes a new man (or woman).
Cleansed, and washed clean from his sins, and stands in an approved, righteous and saved condition before God.

He can lose that position of course if he reverts to his former course of life. But he has not evolved. It is God's free gift of mercy, based on the
Christian's faith in Jesus' shed blood, his ransom sacrifice for all those willing to exercise faith in it.

And the shadow of the things in the law are reflections of the realities, in heaven itself.

Taken together the fossils do not appear to provide indisputable evidence for the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Indeed, birds
appear in the fossil record lower than their supposed ancestors, not higher as we might expect. Also, some of the evidence (Protoavis and Triassic
bird footprints) appears to refute the current evolutionary story of bird ancestry. Furthermore, the evidence for "protofeathers" has been
questioned. However, evolutionists try to explain away the discordant evidence to protect the theory. Therefore, I conclude that the existence of
superbly engineered birds remains a significant challenge to neo-darwinian evolution.

The beauty of the natural universe is that we have harnessed the ability to understand it through science, if we keep this mindset that an all
powerful uber universal being is pulling our strings, or created us in a lab, is closed minded.
Science has even seen the moments RIGHT before the big bang, we even know what a black hole is, and seen galaxies so old that they emit types of light
that we can only see with certain filters, the human eye can't see it.

Science is the search for answers, but just bowing down to "god made it" will never fly, because unfortunately there is ZERO shred of evidence in
the world of science that points to a creator.

No, but in fact there is proof in creation that there was a Creator behind it. The fact that we came into existence and exist is enough.

The Bible is very simple but logical in its reasoning when it states:

(Hebrews 3:4) Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

That is why it also points to this fact:

(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,
even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

The universe had a beginning. There is no denying this scientific fact. Now something cannot come from nothing. So what caused the universe to come
into existence? It can only be by something or someone. Now if you state something, which science will NEVER teach you, as you claim, where did that
something come from? It had to have been eternal. It is no different than stating that it was from someone eternal, except for the fact that that
someone has a mind and is able to think and move and act, while that something eternal which you put your blind faith in has no knowledge. Which
makes more sense?

Science can never go beyond to tell us what caused the universe to come into existence. Thus it will not lead to spiritual enlightenment. And it
will never be able to answer the most basic of all human questions, why are we here? What is our purpose?

You preach that you aren't a creationist, yet you just quoted scripture as fact. Doesn't that sort of go against what you are trying to get across?

And if that is your scientific proof of a god creating the universe than it will never fly with science, you can't test it, you can't falsify it,
and you can't even observe it.
The fact that the universe came from a big bang IS fact, the moments before it, well science is trying to explain it, but any person who understands
science knows that you can't go around telling people what came before the big bang as fact. There are theories as to how, and they do have some
evidence behind it, like a multiverse, where our universe is one of many, like the many galaxies you see in our universe.

DNA just like every OTHER process and object in the universe started out more basic than it currently is and over the many billions of years of its
existence it slowly evolved to the complexity that we see today. To (kind of) quote statisticians on the impossibility of DNA folding over is asinine.
Because the DNA of today isn't the same as the DNA when it first appeared on the planet.

I didn't come here to argue. Just state the difference between believing in a Creator and in creationism. There is a big difference, no evolutionist
seems willing to acknowledge.

And life has not been on earth billions of years as you claim. Also, the millions of years life has been on earth, has not given it sufficient time
to create the complexities we see in life. There in is your enigma.

I didn't come here to argue. Just state the difference between believing in a Creator and in creationism. There is a big difference, no evolutionist
seems willing to acknowledge.

You are speaking for literally the entire scientific community here. Are you sure you are safe in that assumption? I know for one that I have no
problem with you believing in god, provided that you admit that evolution is real. I'm an agnostic so I won't make silly assumptions like that, but if
they make you happy who am I to tell you otherwise? I certainly don't have proof against your claim, so believe all you want. Just understand that
this god works though evolution and any other scientific process in play to develop the universe. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this insinuation that
evolution and god are incompatible. Evolution makes zero claims towards the existence of a god or gods. Also the religious beliefs of the scientists
who believe evolution has little baring on what evolution says towards god as well (which is nothing). So you are working on some fallacious
assumptions to create a strawman. Most of the people who have a problem reconciling evolution and god are creationists which you appear to be.

And life has not been on earth billions of years as you claim. Also, the millions of years life has been on earth, has not given it sufficient
time to create the complexities we see in life. There in is your enigma.

Yes, life has been here for billions of years. For about 3.6 of them
to be a bit more precise. Also yes there has been sufficient time to create the complexities we see in life thanks to
punctuated equilibrium. Though I'm curious what math you, personally, calculated and
used to determine that your claim is true? Please produce those calculations. I want to check your math.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.